Additional Materials:

Contact:

DIGEST: Request for reconsideration of initial decision is denied where protester fails to specify any factual or legal basis warranting reversal or modification of initial decision. Eight bids were received at bid opening on September 15. Its bid was responsive. Or that definitive responsibility criteria in the solicitation were misapplied. There was no evidence in the record to indicate fraud or bad faith by the procurement officials in determining Repco to be a responsible bidder that could supply the required equipment. Repco was not required to submit evidence of conformance of its equipment to the specifications until 30 days after notice of award or award of the contract. Stating the factual and legal grounds upon which reversal or modification is deemed warranted and specifying any errors of law made or information not previously considered. 4 C.F.R.

B-236687.3, Jun 20, 1990

DIGEST: Request for reconsideration of initial decision is denied where protester fails to specify any factual or legal basis warranting reversal or modification of initial decision.

Attorneys

King-Fisher Company-- Request for Reconsideration:

King-Fisher Company requests that we reconsider our decision in King Fisher Co., B-236687.2, Feb. 12, 1990, 90-1 CPD Para. 177, in which we denied King-Fisher's protest challenging the acceptability of Repco, Incorporated's bid under invitation for bids (IFB) No. N62922-89-B-6577, issued by the Department of the Navy for a radio fire alarm system for the Subic Bay Naval Base, Republic of the Philippines.

We deny the request for reconsideration.

Eight bids were received at bid opening on September 15. By letter dated September 20, King-Fisher, the third low bidder, filed an agency level protest, alleging that neither Seaboard Electronics Company, the apparent low bidder, nor Repco, the second low bidder, could manufacture equipment meeting the specification requirements. The agency rejected Seaboard's bid as nonresponsive. By letter dated September 27 to the agency, Repco, which did not take any exceptions in its bid to the specifications, confirmed that the equipment which it intended to supply would meet or exceed the specification requirements. On September 28, the agency awarded the contract to Repco.

In its protest, King-Fisher challenged the agency's determination that Repco would be able to perform the contract by supplying equipment conforming to the specifications. We held that since Repco did not take any exception to the specifications in its bid, its bid was responsive, and that the challenge to Repco's ability to perform in accordance with the specifications involved Repco's responsibility. TLC Sys., B-231969, Sept. 13, 1988, 88-2 CPD Para. 238. We pointed out that an agency's affirmative determination of responsibility would not be reviewed by our Office absent a showing of possible fraud or bad faith on the part of procurement officials, or that definitive responsibility criteria in the solicitation were misapplied. Bid Protest Regulations, 4 C.F.R. Sec. 21.3(m)(5) (1990); TLC Sys., B-231969, supra. In this case, there was no evidence in the record to indicate fraud or bad faith by the procurement officials in determining Repco to be a responsible bidder that could supply the required equipment. We further stated that under the solicitation, Repco was not required to submit evidence of conformance of its equipment to the specifications until 30 days after notice of award or award of the contract; therefore, this requirement did not establish a definitive responsibility criterion as a precondition to the award to Repco. King Fisher Co., B-205003, June 16, 1982, 82-1 CPD Para. 592.

On reconsideration, King-Fisher, referencing paragraph 6 of its comments to the agency report, alleges that we failed to address an argument concerning an ambiguity in Repco's bid. Under our Bid Protest Regulations, a protester may request reconsideration of our prior decision, stating the factual and legal grounds upon which reversal or modification is deemed warranted and specifying any errors of law made or information not previously considered. 4 C.F.R. Sec. 21.12(a); R. C. Hendrick & Son, Inc.-- Request for Recon., B-236497.2, Oct. 26, 1989, 89-2 CPD Para. 389.

However, in the referenced paragraph, we saw and continue to see nothing that reasonably can be read as a specific allegation that Repco's bid was ambiguous. King-Fisher merely stated that it had reviewed Repco's bid and believed that Repco would not supply equipment conforming to the specifications. No indication of how or why the bid might be ambiguous was presented. Thus, we viewed this statement simply as support of King- Fisher's allegation that Repco would not furnish conforming items. discussed above, we fully addressed this allegation in our initial decision.

Because King-Fisher basically reiterates its earlier argument, and has not specified any factual or legal basis warranting reversal or modification of our initial decision, the request for reconsideration is denied.